Interesting discussion been going on here....
In general, it would appear that there are multiple areas in which public schooling can be improved, varying from area to area and from school to school.
The disconnect between the form of knowledge/learning that tests demand and the form of knowledge/learning that supports further learning was an interesting take.
I would think one thing that might help would be to eliminate multiple choice and true/false tests completely, transitioning to tests that demanded you think about and solve a problem if you wished to pass.
Granted, that would require far more investment in grading those tests, as it could not be done by computer, except perhaps in the various math’s, and even there, examining the method used to reach the answer is very useful in judging a student’s skill.
Further, it would require that students actually learn (Why in the hell does Microsoft Word want me to change “learn” to “teach”?!? ) the subject to be capable of passing, and as a result, would require that teachers teach the subject so that the students could learn, especially if funding is at least in part based on the number of students who pass.
Another area that seems to be an issue is school leadership.
If the principle and/or other officials are not capable, the school will suffer, to an extent mitigated by quality of teachers and parents in the area, among other factors.
A school in an affluent area might do better despite poor leadership than a school in a poor area, but…
And that’s another issue I see.
Area-based public school funding (property taxes in PA fund schools) seems designed to give students who live in a rich area a leg up on those who live in poor areas. It’s pure, unadulterated bull****.
I could go on, but this post is too long already, and I don’t feel like typing more anyways…